Re: RIF Homework for May 2 Telecon

> 
> 
> [Sorry all, sent this on Friday but the over-zealous W3C spam system 
> rejected it]
> 
> I realize it is a long weekend in many places, but I hope people will
> come to the call somewhat prepared to talk about:
> 
> The RIF proposal made by Harold and Michael
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html]
> The new G/C/R hierarchy proposed by Paula
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Towards_a_Rule_Interchange_Format%3A_Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors%2C_Requirements]

To start the discussion on Paula's doc, here are some comments. All but one
are hopefully minor and are requests for clarification. Only one is a major
issue: the requirement for being able to represent an inference system.
This has already been discussed extensively. I was sitting on the sidelines
in this discussion, but, in my view, the proponents failed to make their
case.


	--michael  


1. Goal
    CSF 2
      Requirement 2: Component languages follow same paradigms
          
	  *** Not clear what is meant here.

    CSF 3
      Requirement 3
        Desideratum 1: RIF should accept OWL KBs as data

	  *** Not clear what data is meant here. The A-box?

      Requirement 6: Type system / Datatype built-in predicates and functions

          *** Typing should be optional


2. Goal
     CSF 1
       Requirement 2: Format for specifying the inference procedure
	     (inference procedure interchange format) that can be applied
	     to a set of rules

	  *** This is very controversial as a requirement. Neither the use
              cases nor the intent are particularly clear.
	      (Where exactly in
              http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Operationally_Equivalent_Translations
	      is it needed that an inference procedure should be
              communicated to another engine?)
	      I didn't take part in the previous discussion of this
              subject, but I do share skepticism that others expressed
              towards this issue.

      CSF 2
        Requirement 1: Definition of default behavior(s)

	  *** Not clear what this means.

3. Goal

    CSF 1

       What is the difference between

          # Desideratum 2: (Scoped) negation as failure is required
	  # Desideratum 4: Representation of closed-world assumption for
			   rule sets

	Is #4 implied by #2?

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 04:23:38 UTC